The curious case of NEET in Supreme Court

This entry is part 3 of 13 in the series Tamil Nadu Opposes NEET

This is the 4th part of “Why Tamil Nadu Opposes NEET” a series of posts on Anitha’s suicide and NEET. It is based on a speech by Mr. Marudhaiyan of People’s Arts and Literature Association (PALA), published in  The text of the speech has been translated into English by Nesan. Those who know Tamil can view the videos of speech here.

We publish this in 12 parts with suitable explanatory comments for the benefit those from outside Tamil Nadu.

Please read and share your views. Please also spread this message to your friends circles widely.

Let us now consider the manner in which they imposed NEET on us. It is against the legal procedures they themselves created.

Supreme Court said Tamilnadu’s case is valid and they should come up with a compromise formula so that both State board students and NEET students get seats. But, in the next hearing, on hearing the central health ministry’s stand, without going into compromise formula, the court rejected waiver to Tamilnadu.

  • Would this little girl Anitha have trusted this compromise suggested by Supreme Court or not?
  • Should the state government have asked the court why you change today after telling different thing yesterday, or not?
  • Should they who failed to question the court accept responsibility for the Anitha’s death or not?
  • Is this court answerable or not?

But they won’t open their mouths. These culprits are saying that those who took Anitha to the court for justice are responsible.

It is the Congress government who first brings NEET exam. Many, including Tamil Nadu government went to court, opposing that. A bench headed by Altamas Kabir rejected NEET. The reasons given for rejection were

  • it negates the right of minority institutions enshrined in constitution,
  • it negates the rights of state educational boards;
  • Education comes under concurrent list and but NEET interferes with the rights of the states.

For all these reasons, the bench decided that NEET cannot be implemented. Central government went for appeal.

When Modi came to power, this case was pun on fast track. Justice Anil R. Dave who gave minority judgement in the previous bench becomes the head of the new bench to hear the appeal. The new bench hears the case. Central government argues for NEET. Tamil Nadu government and other colleges argue against NEET.

What did the bench do?

Already there is a judgement. Let the court hear their cases. But till then, whatever the Supreme Court has said in this matter is the law. That is tradition. That is the position of the constitution. But what this bench did. It suspended the previous judgement and issued an interim order imposing NEET. All the debates currently going are on this interim judgement.

There is still the main case, the basic case pending. The main case of whether we need NEET or not is yet to be heard. It is gathering dust.

Modi with Tamil Nadu private education baron Pachamuthu

Modi with Tamil Nadu private education baron Pachamuthu

The Edappadi government[2] should have asked why the main case is not heard and should have told the court what it is doing is illegal. But they were mute.
It is they who pushed Anitha to death. It is they who should take the blame. The Supreme Court should bear the responsibility for having not followed the due process.

If you think the law is very complex, let me explain with a simple example.

I own a house. A person say X goes to court claiming my house to be his. The court hears the case and gives judgement that the house is mine. X files review petition. On hearing X, the court asks me to vacate as X is asking for it. I go out.

Now what does X do? X is demolishing the house for building a new one. I go and object. But the court tells me not to interfere and lets X go ahead.
What kind of justice is this? Where in this world is it possible? It is possible in India.

This is what BJP and Sangh Parivar follow as their modus operandi.

Don’t think that NEET is new.

This is what happened in Babri Masjid issue. The idol had been put inside the mosque. It was disputed. Mosque was sealed. After demolishing the mosque, they erected a tent for this idol and now it has become a shrine. Worship takes place. This is the ‘status quo’ now. The demolition of the mosque and creation of ram shrine.

Later Alahabad high court, on the pretext of Hindus believing it gives two third of the land to them.

The injustice meted out to the Muslims in Babri masjid is the same injustice meted out to Tamilnadu in the case of NEET. Both are one and the same thing.

(next The legal argument against NEET and Supreme Court’s arrogance)

[2. Edappadi K Palaniswamy is the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He was appointed chief minister by Sasikala, partner in corruption to the late Jayalalithaa, both Sasikala and Jayalalithaa were convicted in disproportionate assets case. After pushed into ditching Sasikala, Edappadi has joined hands with O Panneerselvam and both are dancing to the tunes of Modi and Amit Shah]

Series Navigation<< Should we accept imposition on our rights?The legal argument against NEET and Supreme Court’s Highhandedness >>

Permanent link to this article:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this:
Read more:
Thoothukudi Massacre – Protest by Techies in Mahindra City

So far 13 protesters are killed as the corporate government, unleashed brutal attack on the peaceful protesters who were marching...

“Extract Product from Low Wage Workers” – Morgan Stanley Economist

In all of our three archetypical global commodities, gross profits, i.e., the difference between their cost of production and their...